(no subject)

[jianantonic]

Okay, I am not happy.
#1 I'm not happy about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the killing that's happening over there in the name of liberation.
#2 I'm not happy about the bombings in London.
#3 I'm not happy that when militaries take personel and equipment to other countries and bomb the shit out of them, it's war, but when people from those countries fight back, it's terrorism.
WAR AND TERRORISM ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING AND IT IS NO MORE NEWS THAT THERE WERE ATTACKS IN LONDON TODAY THAN IT IS THAT THERE ARE ATTACKS IN IRAQ EVERY DAY.
There. I said it. London gets a headline because it's "our side," although I use the word "our" very lightly.
Yes, it's sad that lots of white people died today, but what has been happening every day in Iraq for the last two years is equally sad and even more destructive.

Yes, it's sad, and yes, I have a heart and DO feel for those that suffer because of today's attacks, BUT I'm not going to act like it's in any way different from what the American, British, and other militaries are doing in Iraq, because it's not.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I am not in favor of ANY attacks, war or retaliatory. I do not think it's good that the "other side" is retaliating. But I do think that the military aggression by "our side" is just as wrong, just as groundless, and no different from what some are labelling "terrorism." War is terror, it's never a good way to handle issues between nations, and I'm never in favor of any of it.

Calling one thing war and another (very similar) thing terror creates the distinction that one is somehow justified and the other not. They are both mass killings for what one side thinks is a good reason and the other does not. Has mass murder ever been successful in bringing about harmony? You killed my brother and my daughter - I see what you mean now, yes I'll go your way. It doesn't work this way.

Professor Watson is right. It's never just semantics. Here's a prime example of how two different words for the same thing can divide nations.

Peace.

Comments

[harri-cady.livejournal.com]

I think "war" could be described as "terror" but that there is supposed to be a "good" purpose to war, whereas acts of terrorism are intended purely to cause harm and destruction.

I wish there were more emphasis on communication before taking action in this world. The UN (or a similar organization/initiative) could be such a great thing if only everyone would take it seriously and really utilize it for its intended purposes.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

I think many so-called terrorists see their acts as serving a greater purpose, too, like putting a halt to the destructive ways of American capitalism (this is what I understand to be the goal of the 9/11 attacks), just like the US' attacks in Iraq were to put a halt to the destructive ways of the Iraqi regime. It's the same.

[harri-cady.livejournal.com]

But the intent to harm is not the same, IMO. I don't feel like the primary goal of war is to kill as many people as possible, but maybe we don't agree on that.

"Acts of terrorism" to me means the person's intent is to harm, scare, kill, etc.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

It may not be the spoken intent, but why bomb the whole of Iraq just to get one man out of power? Why bomb anything at all? The purpose/use of bombs is to scare or overpower the other side into submission, and mass death is the tactic of choice. When war is declared (or undeclared but still enacted), that's saying, "We're going to take our weapons into your territory and kill and destroy until you agree with us." War isn't declared as a way to gather diplomats.

[harri-cady.livejournal.com]

I guess I don't know. The main reason I didn't agree with the bombing of Iraq is that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the purpose (to find Saddam). I suppose I'm trying to repond to you based on what I feel the world should be like, and not based on what it really is like... :/

When I think of "war" I think of two nations who are disagreeing and who feel the need to fight it out, but in my head both nations sort of agree that war is a necessary step. I don't know as I feel all war is wrong, because I feel there were justifyable reasons to go to war with Germany in WWII, for example, but...

I guess I don't know what I was trying to say. I just feel they (war and terrorism) are different with respect to intention, but maybe I don't have support for that opinion.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

I understand where you are coming from. Just FYI, because I was a history major and I feel the need to share this with everyone...the US was only minimally involved in fighting against Germany in WWII. In fact, before Pearl Harbor, the US even sold weapons to Germany (as well as the allies, of course). When the US did become involved in the war, it was mostly to fight against Japan, and the fighting that took place against Japan is, in my opinion, the single most gruesome chapter in American history. Soldiers would send body parts of Japanese soldiers that they'd killed home to their families as souveniers, for example. It was positively wretched, and all the while back home, people were tauting this as "The Good War." Also, hindsight makes WWII look a lot more noble than it was. At the time of the fighting, the Allies had NO IDEA the extent of the death camps and concentration camps run by the Nazis. They knew Jews were being killed, but no one - not even Germans outside of Hitler's inner circle - had any clue how many camps there were and what was actually happening in them.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

And I totally neglected to mention the Japanese Interment back stateside...Japanese Americans - many natural born American citizens - were thrown into labor camps, all their property confiscated, right here in the US. People (even history majors like myself, apparently) often forget this nasty little detail.

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

Hmm...well, the fact that I'm from Bedford County (http://www.dday.org/) makes me kneejerk disagree with you with the the US was only minimally involved in fighting against Germany in WWII statement. But the fact that I'm not a history major and am somewhat lazy (and thus, have no idea what I'm talking about) makes me pull back.

Information on the Normandy invasion wrt that statement?

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

The US had some troops in the European theater, and there were Americans fighting with the allies before America officially joined in, but most of the American military effort was focused on Japan. On the other hand, Hitler was the focus of the propaganda, because he was well-hated and an easy way to rally Americans to support the war and go fight...in Japan. It's a little different, but Osama is still a major propaganda figure for the war on terror, which is mainly being fought in Iraq, but that's the Iraq war...and then you've got Saddam as the propaganda figurehead, and he's been gone for over a year now, so why is it that we're fighting again?

The overwhelming stories that you hear about WWII are "we" defeated Hitler and put an end to the Holocaust, and okay, yeah, that happened, but at the time, no one knew how ridiculously massive this Holocaust thing was, and on top of that we were interring the Japanese into American versions of the concentration camps and doing things in Japan that make Abu Ghraib look like Disney World.

[artsygeek.livejournal.com]

There's several reasons why it's "terror" and the attacks the US make are "not news". One is that the attacks the US incurs in Iraq have been ongoing for some time. While the attacks in London just happened and are "new", hence being "news".

The attacks in London and the attacks a year ago in Spain are prime examples of the speciousness of the rationalization for the war in Iraq that the neocons came up with, that we should "fight the terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here". I was listening to NPR's Talk of The Nation on my way to VA Western to get on the net; a contributor brought up another policy issue that gets me fuming. The Bush administration as well as the other members of the G8 have given flowery words, but little action about Cooperative Threat Reduction (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctr/) or Nunn-Lugar (http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar.html) and total lip service to funding it.

That brings me to the next point. Terrorism is a tactic of war for those who can't afford to attack "hardened" targets. Terrorism is a term for a tactic in war and should not be used to morally differentiate action of one group from another.

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

Like guerilla warfare. "Little war."

[artsygeek.livejournal.com]

exactly